JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.05.2001, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby, he was held guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 365 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.08.1997 Anant Ram, father of Jaswant Singh filed an application to the Incharge Police Post, Khui Khera regarding disappearance of Jaswant Singh submitting therein that his son Jaswant Singh left his house on 06.08.1997 at about 4.00 P.M. along with Ved Parkash for fetching green fodder. At about 6.30 P.M., Ved Parkash though brought the green fodder to their house but when he was asked about Jaswant Singh, he told that Jaswant Singh would also come. Jaswant Singh was aged about 17 years and search was made but he could not be located. On the basis of this application DDR No.22 dated 09.08.1997 Ex.P6 was recorded. After two months later i.e. on 09.10.1997, FIR Ex.P5 was recorded on the statement of Jai Lal, uncle of Jaswant Singh. He mainly stated same facts. It is also stated that they have also come to know that Ved Parkash had a doubt in his mind that Jaswant Singh had illicit relations with sister-inlaw of Ved Parkash. Supplementary statement of Jai Lal was also recorded on 12.10.1997 and offence was changed to 302/201 IPC. Rough site plan Ex.P7 of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested. On interrogation, he made disclosure statement that he had removed clothes of Jaswant Singh i.e. shirt, pyjama etc. and had kept concealed these articles by putting in the polythene envelope by burrying it under the earth. Accused got recovered the articles in pursuance of his disclosure statement. He also got recovered one more shirt in pursuance of his disclosure statement. After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused-appellant. 3. and had kept concealed these articles by putting in the polythene envelope by burrying it under the earth. Accused got recovered the articles in pursuance of his disclosure statement. He also got recovered one more shirt in pursuance of his disclosure statement. After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused-appellant. 3. On presentation of challan against accused-appellant, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding prima facie case, the accused-appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 302 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Jai Lal, uncle of Jaswant Singh (deceased), in whose company Anant Ram went to the police post Khatwa and moved application regarding missing of Jaswant Singh and in whose presence accused-appellant has taken Jaswant Singh with him from his house. PW-2 Bansi Lal mainly deposed that on 06.08.1997, he had gone to the fields of Ved Parkash in order to weed out the grass. At about 5.30 P.M., Ved Parkash and Jaswant came there and Jaswant had cut the chari crop from the fields. After that they started smoking. They had not noticed his presence. However, he had seen them from the place where he was working. He heard shrieks of Jaswant. Accused Ved Parkash strangulated Jaswant by putting his shirt around his neck. He further deposed that accused leaving behind the dead body of Jaswant went away. He also went to his house out of fear that accused might not kill him. He had not narrated the occurrence to anyone. He also deposed that after the accused was arrested by the police, police came to village on 31.10.1997 and on that day, he had narrated the occurrence to the police. PW-3 Bahadur Ram mainly deposed that about 1 ½ years ago, he was cultivating the land of the accused on batai. On 06.08.1997 at about 1.00 or 2.00 P.M., accused Ved Parkash met him and stated that Jaswant Singh had got illicit relations with Maina, his brother’s wife, therefore, he wants to teach him a lesson. PW-3 Bahardur Ram told him that he should bring this fact to the notice of his parents and also asked him not to do anything in haste. From there, accused went to his house, whereas PW-3 went to his house. PW-3 Bahardur Ram told him that he should bring this fact to the notice of his parents and also asked him not to do anything in haste. From there, accused went to his house, whereas PW-3 went to his house. He further deposed that on the same day at about 8.00 P.M., accused again came to his house and told him that he had murdered Jaswant Singh after strangulating him. His dead body is lying in the fields, therefore, he should help him in disposing of the body. PW-3 further deposed that he asked him to leave him alone and accused should leave the place because he did not want to be a party in such a heinous crime. After about two months thereafter, accused came to his house and requested him to accompany him but out of fear that he might not kill him too, he did not accompany him. PW-3 Bahadur Ram also deposed that he disclosed this fact to his brother Devi Lal and then they informed Jai Lal and Anant Ram. PW- 4 Radha Krishan mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.P4. PW-5 SI Sandeep Kumar Sharma is the Investigating Officer. He mainly deposed regarding investigation conducted by him in the present case. PW-6 SI Kirpal Singh mainly deposed regarding partly investigation conducted by him. 5. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accusedappellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He further pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Jaswant Singh had himself gone away from the village. Jaswant Singh, Jai Lal and Bansi are of same brotherhood. Bahadur Ram has deposed against him because he had refused to give his land to him for cultivation on batai. All are made up witnesses and have deposed falsely to implicate him because he has 50/60 acres of land and he is of upper caste. He has not committed the murder of Jaswant Singh. 6. In defence, accused-appellant examined DW-1 Inderjit, who mainly deposed that on 09.10.1997, he had been given telegram that Ved Parkash has been arrested by the police on 30.09.1997. The copy of telegram is Ex.D1 and postal receipt is Ex.D2. 7. On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. 8. The copy of telegram is Ex.D1 and postal receipt is Ex.D2. 7. On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. 8. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no cogent evidence on the record to prove the offence under Section 365 IPC against the accused-appellant. He next argued that as per statement of the complainant, Jaswant Singh (deceased) had gone with Ved Parkash appellant at his own to bring green fodder and there is nothing in the evidence to prove his abduction or kidnapping. He further contended that there is no evidence on record to prove the prosecution version and accusedappellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, argued that there being merit in the appeal, the same should be allowed and appellant should be acquitted. 9. On the other hand, learned Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent-State argued that from the evidence of PW-1 Jai Lal, which is supported by other witnesses, the abduction has been duly proved and there being no merit, the appeal should be dismissed. 10. I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. 11. From the evidence on record, I find merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. The perusal of the evidence on record shows that offence under Section 365 IPC has not been proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence on record beyond reasonable doubt. As per statement of PW-1 Jai Lal, on 06.08.1997 at about 4.30 P.M., appellant came to their house and he had taken Jaswant along with him saying that fodder is to be brought. It is in the evidence that in the evening at about 6.00 P.M., Ved Parkash appellant alone returned to house in order to leave the fodder. When Anant Ram inquired from the appellant about Jaswant Singh, he told that he would return to the house on his own. The perusal of this statement nowhere shows that accused-appellant had taken Jaswant Singh forcibly or by deceitful means. As regarding offence under Section 302 IPC, the accused-appellant has already been acquitted. When Anant Ram inquired from the appellant about Jaswant Singh, he told that he would return to the house on his own. The perusal of this statement nowhere shows that accused-appellant had taken Jaswant Singh forcibly or by deceitful means. As regarding offence under Section 302 IPC, the accused-appellant has already been acquitted. Except this statement, there is nothing on the record to prove the abduction. Section 365 IPC read as under:- “365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person.-- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 12. From the reading of above-said Section, it is clear that under Section 365 IPC, a person can be convicted only when kidnapping or abduction has taken place with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person. There are no such allegations and no such cogent evidence is on the record that the abduction was done to secretly and wrongfully confine Jaswant Singh by the appellant. Section 362 IPC states that “whoever by force or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.” 13. From the evidence on record, I find that offence of abduction has not been proved on the record. Even, in the DDR Ex.P6, it is stated that Jaswant Singh left the house along with Ved Parkash, appellant to bring fodder. Therefore, in no way it can be held as kidnapping or abduction of Jaswant Singh. There is no other cogent evidence on the record to prove the offence under Section 365 IPC. The extra judicial confession regarding murder and also the evidence regarding recovery of clothes of deceased, have already been disbelieved by the trial Court and the accused has already been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC. 14. Therefore, from the above evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence. Hence, giving benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 365 IPC. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur are set aside. Hence, giving benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 365 IPC. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur are set aside. Since, appellant is on bail, his bail bond stand discharged. 15. Resultantly, finding merit in the appeal, the same is allowed. --------0.B.S.0------------